- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kishor K. Mehta v. Rekha H. Sheth And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Late Shri Kirtilal Manilal Mehta settled the “Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust” on 5-7-1978. The petitioner, Shri Kishor Kirtilal Mehta, claims to be a permanent trustee under Clause 16 of the trust deed, a status disputed by several other trustees (Respondents 1-10). Multiple disputes concerning the Trust are pending in different courts.
Respondent 6 issued a notice dated 30-1-2014 convening a Board meeting for 7-2-2014. Five persons, including the petitioner, sought interim relief before the Bombay High Court (Civil Application No. 329 of 2014 in W.P. No. 735 of 2014) to receive notice and participate. The High Court refused interim relief on 4-2-2014.
The petitioners approached the Supreme Court by SLP (C) Nos. 3772 and 3770 of 2014. On 7-2-2014 the Court stayed the proposed meeting, and on 14-2-2014 disposed of the SLPs by directing that the “next meeting” be held at Hotel Taj Lands End, Bandra, with notice (agenda and explanatory notes) to all trustees entitled to participate.
Alleging that no notice was served on him for a subsequent meeting fixed on 25-2-2014, the petitioner filed the present contempt petition against the respondents for wilful violation of the Supreme Court’s order dated 14-2-2014.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Respondent 6 wilfully disobeyed the Supreme Court’s order dated 14-2-2014, thereby committing contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution.
- Whether, to “do complete justice,” the Supreme Court should recall its earlier order of 14-2-2014 and issue interim directions concerning the administration of the Trust pending disposal of the original SLPs.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- Respondent 6 deliberately failed to serve notice of the 25-2-2014 meeting on the petitioner, in direct contravention of the Supreme Court’s order of 14-2-2014.
- Invoked the decision in Pritam Pal v. High Court of M.P., 1993 Supp (1) SCC 529, to emphasise that the Supreme Court’s contempt power under Article 129 is inherent, elastic, and not limited by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- Requested punishment of the contemnors and exercise of the Court’s power under Article 142 to ensure complete justice.
Respondent 6’s Arguments
- No notice was served on the petitioner or Respondents 12-19 because, in Respondent 6’s bona fide view, they were not trustees and therefore had no right to participate in the Board meeting.
- Contended that the Supreme Court’s order of 14-2-2014 did not adjudicate who was or was not a trustee; hence Respondent 6’s non-service of notice was not a wilful disobedience.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Pritam Pal v. High Court of M.P., 1993 Supp (1) SCC 529; AIR 1992 SC 904 | The Supreme Court’s power to punish for contempt under Article 129 is inherent and not curtailed by legislation. | Cited by the petitioner to justify invoking contempt jurisdiction; the Court acknowledged the citation but ultimately declined to hold Respondent 6 in contempt. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that when it passed the order dated 14-2-2014 it was under the impression—uncontested at the time—that there was no dispute about who were the trustees entitled to notice. Respondents 1, 5 and 6, present through counsel on 14-2-2014, had not disclosed their stand that the petitioner and Respondents 12-19 were not trustees.
Upon examining Respondent 6’s reply, the Court found that:
- The earlier order was issued without assessing the rival claims to trusteeship.
- Respondent 6 entertained a bona fide belief that the petitioner and others were not trustees, negating the element of wilfulness required for contempt.
Consequently, the Court concluded that a contempt finding would be inappropriate. However, to “do complete justice” and to manage the Trust pending final adjudication, it exercised its powers to:
- Recall the order dated 14-2-2014 disposing of SLP (C) Nos. 3772 and 3770 of 2014.
- Issue notice in the SLPs to all respondents for detailed replies within eight weeks.
- Constitute an interim Board of Trustees comprising (i) Smt Charu K. Mehta, (ii) Smt Rekha H. Sheth (undisputed life trustees), and (iii) Mr Justice J.N. Patel (former Chief Justice, Calcutta High Court) as Chairman, with an honorarium of Rs 1,00,000 per meeting payable from Trust funds.
- Authorize Justice Patel to convene and conduct meetings as required, with full cooperation from the Trust’s management and staff.
Holding and Implications
Contempt proceedings against Respondent 6 are dropped; the Supreme Court’s order dated 14-2-2014 is recalled; notices in SLP (C) Nos. 3772 and 3770 of 2014 are issued to all respondents; an interim Board of Trustees is constituted under the chairmanship of Justice J.N. Patel.
Immediate Effect: Respondent 6 faces no contempt penalty. The administration of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust will, until further orders, be conducted by the interim Board, ensuring continuity and neutrality in management.
Broader Implications: The decision clarifies that a finding of contempt requires proof of wilful disobedience and that, where underlying factual disputes exist, the Court may recall earlier orders and craft interim arrangements under Article 142 to achieve complete justice. No new precedent on substantive law was set beyond these case-specific directions.
A.K Patnaik, J.— In this contempt petition, the petitioner has alleged that the respondents have wilfully violated the order dated 14-2-2014 passed by this Court in Kishor K. Mehta v. Rekha H. Sheth SLP (C) No. 3772 of 2014, SLP (C) No. 3770 of 2014.
2. The facts very briefly are that on 5-7-1978, Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (hereinafter referred to as “the Trust”) was settled by late Shri Kirtilal Manilal Mehta. The Trust is governed by the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. As per Clause 16 of the trust deed, the petitioner, Kishor Kirtilal Mehta is one of the permanent trustees for the lifetime. Respondents 1 to 10, however, dispute that Kishor Kirtilal Mehta continues to be a life trustee. Various other disputes between the trustees are pending in different courts.
3. While the position stood thus, Respondent 6 issued a notice on 30-1-2014 to convene a meeting of the Board of Trustees on 7-2-2014 at the office premises of Respondent 10. Five persons, namely, Kishor Kirtilal Mehta (the petitioner), Rajiv K. Mehta, Rajesh Mehta, Prashant Mehta and Reshma Mehta, filed Civil Application No. 329 of 2014 in Writ Petition No. 735 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court praying that Respondent 6 be directed to give the notice dated 30-1-2014 of the meeting of the Board of Trustees to them also and they be permitted to participate in the said meeting scheduled on 7-2-2014. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in its order dated 4-2-2014, however, took the view that there is no reason to grant any ad interim relief and that the parties may challenge the proceedings of the meeting by filing appropriate proceedings. This order dated 4-2-2014 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was challenged before this Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3772 of 2014 under Article 136 of the Constitution.
4. On 7-2-2014, this Court directed that the special leave petition be listed on Friday, 14-2-2014 and further directed that in the meanwhile, the meeting of the Board of Trustees scheduled to be held on 7-2-2014 will not be held. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on Friday 14-2-2014 SLP (C) No. 3772 of 2014, SLP (C) No. 3770 of 2014, this Court disposed of the special leave petition with the following order:
“These special leave petitions are against the orders passed by the High Court refusing to grant interim relief with regard to the venue of the meeting of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust as well as to the notice for the convening of the meeting of the Board of Trustees.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we direct that the next meeting of the Board of Trustees will be held at Hotel Taj Lands End, Bandra, and a notice will be given to all the trustees who were entitled to participate in the meeting indicating therein the agenda to be transacted in the meeting along with the explanatory notes.
The special leave petitions stand disposed of.”
Thus, by the aforesaid order, this Court directed that the next meeting of the Board of Trustees will be held at Hotel Taj Lands End, Bandra, and a notice will be given to all the trustees who are entitled to participate in the meeting indicating therein the agenda to be transacted in the meeting along with the explanatory notes and with the said order, disposed of the special leave petition.
5. The petitioner has alleged in this contempt petition that despite the aforesaid order passed on 14-2-2014 SLP (C) No. 3772 of 2014, SLP (C) No. 3770 of 2014, no notice was addressed to the petitioner by Respondent 6 about the meeting of the Board of Trustees scheduled to be held on 25-2-2014 at Hotel Taj Lands End, Bandra, and this was done intentionally. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the contemnors be punished for contempt for wilful violation of the order dated 14-2-2014 SLP (C) No. 3772 of 2014, SLP (C) No. 3770 of 2014 of this Court. In the written submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the decision in Pritam Pal v. High Court of M.P 1993 Supp (1) SCC 529, AIR 1992 SC 904 in which this Court has held that the power of this Court to punish for contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution is not trammelled by any legislation, including the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and its inherent power is elastic and not subject to any limit. He has also cited decisions of this Court on the scope of the power of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass any order to do complete justice.
6. On 14-3-2014, we issued notice of the contempt petition only to Respondent 6 and Respondent 6 has filed his reply in which he has stated that he did not give notice of the meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Trust to the petitioner or Respondents 12 to 19 or any of them as none of them were trustees of the Trust and were not entitled to participate in the meeting. The learned counsel for Respondent 6 submitted that in view of the facts stated in the reply filed by Respondent 6, it will be clear that Respondent 6 was under a bona fide impression that the petitioner and Respondents 12 to 19 were no longer trustees and were not entitled to participate in the meeting of the Board of Trustees.
7. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3772 of 2014 was taken up by us for the first time on 7-2-2014 1993 Supp (1) SCC 529, AIR 1992 SC 904 and disposed of finally by us on 14-2-2014 SLP (C) No. 3772 of 2014, SLP (C) No. 3770 of 2014 without considering the cases of the respective parties as to who were and who were not trustees of the Trust entitled to participate in the meeting of the Trust. As a matter of fact, when we passed the order dated 14-2-2014 SLP (C) No. 3772 of 2014, SLP (C) No. 3770 of 2014, we were under the impression that there was no dispute as such with regard to the trustees who were entitled to participate in the meeting of the Trust and the dispute was confined to the venue of the meeting of the Trust and to the notice not being served on all the trustees. We also found from the order dated 14-2-2014 SLP (C) No. 3772 of 2014, SLP (C) No. 3770 of 2014 that the said order was passed in the presence of the learned counsel for Respondents 1, 5 and 6 and they never pointed out to the Court that the petitioner and Respondents 12 to 19 were no longer trustees of the Trust. If the case of Respondents 1, 5 and 6 was that the petitioner and Respondents 12 to 19 were not entitled to participate as trustees of the Board of Trustees, they should have prayed before the Court for some time to file a reply and place their case in the reply.
8. Considering the reply of Respondent 6, we cannot hold Respondent 6 guilty of wilful disobedience of the order dated 14-2-2014 SLP (C) No. 3772 of 2014, SLP (C) No. 3770 of 2014, but at the same time to do complete justice between the parties, we have to recall the order dated 14-2-2014 SLP (C) No. 3772 of 2014, SLP (C) No. 3770 of 2014 disposing of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3772 of 2014 and issue notice to the respondents to file a reply in the special leave petition and pass an interim order which will remain in force till disposal of the special leave petition.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the interim order that should be passed and we direct that an interim Board of Trustees comprising the two undisputed permanent or lifetime trustees, namely, Smt Charu K. Mehta and Smt Rekha H. Sheth, and Mr Justice J.N Patel, former Judge of the Bombay High Court and former Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court as its Chairman will function till this Court decides the special leave petition. Mr Justice J.N Patel will be entitled to a fee of Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) per meeting of the Board of the Trustees from the funds of Lilavati Hospital and he will have the power to convene a meeting of the Board of Trustees as and when a meeting of the Board of Trustees is required to be held for transacting any business including passing of budgets. The management of Lilavati Hospital and the staff of the Trust will cooperate with and assist Mr Justice J.N Patel in the work of the Trust in all respects.
10. In the result, we drop the contempt proceedings against Respondent 6, recall the order dated 14-2-2014 in Kishor K. Mehta v. Rekha H. Sheth SLP (C) No. 3772 of 2014, SLP (C) No. 3770 of 2014 and issue notice in the special leave petition to all the respondents returnable within eight weeks and direct that interim arrangement made in this order shall continue till disposal of the special leave petition.
Alert